Calendar

Denver’s Badly Broken Liquor License process needs reform

Liquor licensing, by law, is supposed to be about community needs and desires. But with liquor licenses clustering in residential areas and traditional business districts, they bring manifest problems to communities. Denver needs to revisit the process of granting liquor licenses, and broaden the working definition of community needs to balance it with community impacts.

It is literally impossible to argue that Denver “needs” another liquor license, anywhere. There are 1,671 liquor licensed businesses in Denver. In much of the city, there is literally a liquor license on every corner. But more than the density and ubiquity of businesses serving booze, there are next to no checks on the businesses, and the misrepresentations they make to get a license in the first place.

Fire on the Mountain

In North Denver, Fire on the Mountain, a bar/restaurant in West Highlands, located at 32nd and Newton, is perfect example.

In 2012, Fire on the Mountain sought to expand an existing liquor to a patio area. The patio is immediately adjacent to condos, and single family homes are across the street, as well next door to the west. In the liquor license hearing, the license was opposed by neighbors who live within dozens of feet of the patio. Those community needs, which includes freedom from noise and trash, were wholly disregarded by the City and the hearing officer Anthony Marquez.

Denver liquor licenses are everywhere, including in otherwise residential neighborhoods

That disregard was made easier by direct misrepresentations made by Craig Oberlink, an owner of Fire on the Mountain, in the hearing. Oberlink was responding to the concerns of neighbors, and stated the following, according to the recommended decision, the city’s public record of the licensing decision:

“According to Mr. Oberlink, who has met with residents in the area regarding this Application, Fire On The Mountain is sensitive to neighbors’ concerns regarding the patio, and has made efforts to address those concerns. In discussions with residents in the area, two concerns have arisen: noise from the patio, and the effect of the restaurant’s operations on the availability of parking on the surrounding residential streets. Mr. Oberlink stated that Fire On The Mountain is trying to be a good, responsible neighbor. With respect to concerns about noise on the patio, Mr. Oberlink noted that the Applicant has taken certain steps to address neighbors’ concerns. Fire On The Mountain has agreed that no music or television will be provided on the patio; signs in the restaurant will remind patrons to be mindful of noise levels; the restaurant will close the patio by 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 11:00 p.m. on weekends; and the Applicant is planting trees to reduce noise emanating from the patio. With respect to the concern regarding parking on the neighborhood streets, Mr. Oberlink has approached a neighborhood bank, and has obtained an agreement that customers may use the bank’s parking lot after business hours. Fire On The Mountain will also encourage customers to limit parking on neighborhood streets.”

In fact, Oberlink’s agreement came to naught. Fire On The Mountain installed two TV’s on the patio, which now run night and day, clearly audible inside the homes of neighbors. Further, the patio is in use beyond the “agreed to” hours, with loud noise well after 10 p.m. on weekdays, and until midnight on weekends. No signage directs customers or employees to use the bank parking, and employees at the bank are unaware of any agreement.

Which raises the question. Did Oberlink directly perjure himself in order to obtain the liquor license? And if the license was granted on the basis of this testimony, why does the city not act to revoke or restrict the liquor license now?

Clearly, liquor licensing in Denver is both deeply flawed and badly broken. It’s time for either citizens or the city council to take action and fix this mess. Quality of neighborhood life is clearly an important value to the people of Denver. It is not clear that city government values it as highly.